Allahabad HC Quashes Defamation Case Filed By Ex-District Judge Against Aroon Purie Over News Item On Bail To Ex-UP Minister In Rape Case

The defamation complaint was filed by Rajendra Singh (former District Judge, Lucknow) in November 2017 alleging that TV Today Network published a defamatory news item that the grant of Bail to Prajapati was part of a deep conspiracy involving senior judges (including the Complainant/Singh) as the outcome of Prajapati's bail plea was pre-decided.

In the complaint, it was further alleged that the news item concerned tarnished his image as it implied that the then District Judge of Lucknow (Complainant) engaged himself in irregular practices by purportedly posting Judge Om Prakash Mishra to a sensitive POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Court in exchange for monetary considerations.

Further, the complainant added, the news item concerned suggested that Judge Mishra, having been placed in this position, subsequently granted bail to Gayatri Prajapati, thereby insinuating an impropriety in the judicial process.

The complainant, in his complaint, additionally argued that the publication of the said article resulted in the retraction of the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation to appoint him as a Judge of the High Court as allegations were raised, asserting his involvement in the conspiracy related to the grant of bail to Gayatri Prajapati, leading to concerns about his suitability for a judicial position.

Challenge to the defamation complaint

Challenging the defamation complaint proceedings as well as summoning order of Special Judge, Pollution, Lucknow, the applicants- Puri, Aajtak.in, Supriya Prasad (Managing Editor, Broadcast Division in TV Today Network Limited), Mohit Grover (the then Senior Sub-Editor with aajtak.in), moved to the High Court.

It was the primary contention of the applicants that the said news item was published without any mens rea, only in good faith based on authentic information, i.e., one communication of the High Court to the Supreme Court dated 3^rd May 2017.

It was further submitted that the communication between two constitutional authorities is sensitive and, therefore, it had not been made part of the record of the present case, however, a copy of the said communication was provided to the counsel for the Complainant in January 2018 and neither the aforesaid letter nor its contents were challenged by the Complainant.

It was vehemently asserted that the substance of the aforementioned communication indicated that, at the behest of the then Chief Justice of the High Court, a covert investigation was undertaken regarding the grant of bail to Prajapati and the purported involvement of senior judges, including the complainant.

Subsequently, a communication was transmitted to the Supreme Court Collegium from the High Court Chief Justice based on the report of the Intelligence Bureau, ostensibly resulting in the retraction of its recommendation.

Against this backdrop, it was argued that the news article in question, published on June 19, 2017, did not contain any derogatory language directed at any individual and its publication was based on the substance of the correspondence between two Constitutional Authorities.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant contended that the alleged letter is a privileged communication between two Constitutional Institutions and the applicants are liable to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 for publishing confidential communication between the authorities.

It was also argued that the alleged news item was published by the applicants and other persons without getting verified and while doing so, they failed to comply with the norms of Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards prepared by the News Broadcasters & Digital Association, New Delhi.

High Court's observations

Taking note of the facts of the case, the allegations levelled against the applicants, the content of the alleged defamatory news item as well as the privileged communication between the SC Collegium and the High Court, a bench of Justice Rajeev Singh deliberated upon the question of: whether any defamatory act was committed by the applicants and other persons, under a conspiracy?

At the outset, the Court referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Jawaharlal Dadra & Ors. Vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Anr (1998) wherein it was held that in the case of accurate and true reporting published in good faith, it cannot be said that the accused intended to harm the reputation of the complainant.Top of Form

The Court further noted that it was not in dispute that the content of the privileged correspondence between the High Court and Supreme Court, upon which the alleged defamatory news item was based, was not denied by the Complainant.

Given the above facts and discussions, the Court opined that the action of the applicants in publishing the alleged defamatory new item was squarely covered under Exception (1) [Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published] & (3) [Conduct of any person touching any public question] to Section 499 IPC (Defamation).

For context, the First exception to section 499 states that it is not defamation to impute anything true concerning any person if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Further, the Third Exception to this provision states that it is not defamation to express in good faith, any opinion, whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct.

In view of the above facts and discussions, the High Court was of the view that the complaint in question was nothing but sheer abuse of the legal provisions and no offence, as alleged, can be said to be made out.